Blackburn 1-2 Arsenal: Arsenal’s passing game prevails

August 28, 2010

The starting line-ups

Arsenal emerge with the points after a professional display in a decent match.

Sam Allardyce chose to use the two Dioufs either side of Nikola Kalinic upfront, and continued to use Phil Jones ahead of the back four, in a very defensive midfield role. Vince Grella also came into midfield – Allardyce seems to see him as a ‘big game player’, since his three starts in 2010 have come against Arsenal (twice) and Manchester United, and the two before that were against Tottenham and Liverpool.

Arsene Wenger selected Cesc Fabregas and Robin van Persie for the first time this season. Laurent Koscielny returned to the side after suspension, so Alex Song moved back into his preferred deep midfield role.

The game started – and panned out – largely as expected. Arsenal tried to keep possession in midfield, whilst Blackburn pumped long balls into the box from every angle. Morten Gamst Pedersen’s throw-ins were dealt with reasonably well, but Arsenal’s backline had slightly more trouble with Paul Robinson’s huge punts into the area from his own half, and were guilty of both dropping too deep, and letting the ball bounce in the area.

Arsenal fluidity

Arsenal were fluid in midfield – it was surprising how often Fabregas dropped deep to link play, and it was also interesting how frequently Alex Song found himself in advance of Abou Diaby. The shape was rather more 4-2-1-3 than it was 4-3-3 or 4-2-3-1 – Theo Walcott and Andrei Arshavin played high up the pitch and looked to press the full-backs rather than forming two banks of four, whilst Fabregas acted as the link player.

The second point of interest about Arsenal’s shape was van Persie’s inclination to come short to meet the ball, playing the false nine role he perfected at the start of last season, before his injury when on international duty. Blackburn were reasonably well set-up to deal with this, with Jones ahead of the back four, but van Persie still found space to operate in, and his excellent ball in behind the full-back for Walcott’s finish (a classic Walcott goal) demonstrated the value of a striker dropping deep, and two wingers looking to make out-to-in runs.

Blackburn direct

Blackburn’s goal may have been atypical of their approach play, since it involved the ball being passed along the ground, but it still fitted with their general gameplan of playing direct football. Christopher Samba moved out of defence and hit a good ball to El-Hadji Diouf, who beat Koscielny before squaring for Mame Biram Diouf to tap into an empty net. Arsenal had been slightly caught out by quick balls into wide areas throughout the game, and Allardyce’s use of two quick, direct wide players worked well here.

After half-time the game continued its general pattern, though van Persie had been forced to leave the pitch through injury, Marouane Chamakh his replacement – the Moroccan offered a slightly more direct option, but Arsenal didn’t change their approach. With Fabregas not quite up to speed, the main threat was from the wide players, and in particular from Walcott. Gael Givet had problems with the Arsenal winger all day, frequently getting too tight to his man, which meant Walcott could use his pace to get in behind the defence, rather than having to beat Givet with a trick on the ball.

Walcott again important

It was Walcott that created Arsenal’s second – not by his involvement in the deflection that found its way to Arshavin for the finish – but by his intelligent off-the-ball run into the centre of the pitch, to bring Givet inside and open up space for Bacary Sagna, who delivered the ball into the box. Walcott’s “footballing intelligence” has been criticized recently, based on the fact his final ball isn’t always good enough.

Blackburn were surprisingly subdued at 1-2 down, and Arsenal controlled the game well by keeping possession of the ball. Allardyce tried to introduce some guile in midfield by bringing on David Dunn, but he probably would have been better simply sticking to the long ball route, as the game completely passed Dunn by. Allardyce’s decision to remove Kalinic also seemed strange considering he eventually resorted to his classic Plan B of shoving Samba into a striking role.

Nevertheless, Arsenal clung on well, with Manuel Almunia commanding his box more effectively than some may have expected. Koscielny was guilty of making a mistake in the lead up to Blackburn’s equaliser in the first half, but was excellent in the second, and his overall tackling/aerial battle success rate was exactly what Arsenal needed in a fixture like this:

With two such differing styles, this game was about how effectively each could deal with the other’s gameplan. All too often Arsenal have struggled away against Sam Allardyce’s sides, but today they were much more assured defensively, and the win will be a good confidence boost for similar trips to sides which offer a more ‘physical’ approach than Arsenal would like.

Blackburn, however, struggled to deal with Arsenal’s movement off-the-ball – van Persie and Walcott’s runs into unusual zones caused problems for both the goals, although the second was rather fortunate. Blackburn have seemed too one-dimensional in their opening three games, and their goal showed that a similarly direct – but more sophisticated – approach might help them score more goals.

ZM do you think that Arsenal’s starting 11 will be Arsene’s preferred formation/system and players for this season?

I think it looks pretty nifty, taking into consideration J. Wilson’s recent article on the 4-2-1-3. Personally I think players like Nasri and Rosicky could fill several roles in that shape. Vela should do a good job in either of the wing positions too – I think Wenger could be on to a winner.

Assuming of course that injuries don’t mess it up all over again…

David on August 28, 2010 at 7:10 pm

Arsenal used that formation for much of the second half of last season, so yes, I think it will be standard.

speaking of tactical innovations, I found the lineups in Derby v. QPR today to be very interesting. both teams played 4-2-3-1 (which is quite sophisticated to begin with, for the Championship), but that’s not all – Derby lined up with Kris Commons (1.69 m) in a false nine role, while QPR had Jamie Mackie and Hogan Ephraim lined up as inverted wingers! I think Neil Warnock especially deserves a lot of credit, because this is the perfect formation for his star playmaker Adel Taarabt… previous managers tried to pigeonhole him as a central striker or winger in a 4-4-2.

QPR fan on August 29, 2010 at 3:49 am

the problem with the current QPR setup though is that Mackie and Ephraim aren’t paricularly creative themselves and too much depends on Taarabt. When he comes up against a good DM like Savage today and doesn’t get in the game too much, most of our attacks break down. I was hoping Warnock would bring Buz on at HT, maybe for Ephraim, and put him in the centre and Taarabt off to one of the wings to find a bit more space. Ephraim and Mackie are calatysts – they are great bouncing off Taarabt and Faurlin when we are on top and controlling a game, but aren’t great at creating things by themselves (eg in the Port Vale cup match where we rested Taarabt/Faurlin, relied on Ephraim for creativity, and were terrible).

I think the supporting attackers are very important when playing with a false nine, that is to say I don’t think you can play with two natural wingers. Man City showed how two inverted wingers can work with a false nine, Johnson and Milner cutting in to invade the space created by Tevez. I also think a player like Walcott is perfect to play with a false nine. Although some people like to think of him as a classic winger (great acceleration, can beat a man) it is evident when watching him play he naturally gravitates to the middle no matter where he plays. I think it was Ferguson (not sure) who said something like “Why start in the middle and drift wide when the middle is more dangerous? Why not start out wide and go to the middle.” It is what I think when I watch Henry and now Walcott, they start wide and go to the net. A false nine helps drag the center backs around to give room to this type of player.

cja on August 28, 2010 at 7:28 pm

I’ve just watched that Walcot run v Man U a few times and there’s no way he’s doing it to create space – he’s looking for the through ball from Fabregas. In fact the goal looks to be caused by a mistake from Carrick (I think) who doesn’t track Nasri’s final run.

while most of what people have to say here is very interesting, i have heard some nonsense in the comments section and that’s right up there.

great write-up zm, and a terrific result. still thought clichy and sagna were severely isolated, especially clichy playing directly up against an out and out attacker in m diouf, plus the other diouf when he wandered across, and salgado when he ventured forwards, all on his own.

if it’s gonna be a 4-2-1-3 as opposed to a 4-2-3-1 (i much prefer the former given our personnel) then song and diaby, as the 2 screening players, will need to go wide to help out the full-backs more. as a result, the AM (fabregas) and false 9 (rvp) will both have to drop in more, and do more work defensively. otherwise, against better teams, we will get ripped
apart on occasions down the flanks. i was delighted to see walcott tracking back and looking like he really wanted to help out defensively, but arshavin is almost completely useless in this regard.

do you reckon the 4-2-1-3 could be effective against the top teams? i just dont see how playing walcott and arshavin against chelsea and man u is possible, with an AM as well. i think for these games wenger should revert to 4-3-3 with fabregas dropping back in alongside diaby/denilson, and song as a clearly defined anchor man, with van persie playing an even deeper false 9 role.

this way denilson/diaby and fabregas help out the full-backs, van persie sits on the opposition DM, and song is always central in front of the defence. walcott and arshavin could then do what they do best, staying as high as possible and looking to counter.

cheers

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 3:48 pm

“do you reckon the 4-2-1-3 could be effective against the top teams?” you ask.

It depends on (a) the players selected and (b) their attitude. If I had said two years ago: “A team starting four out of Eto’o, Milito, Pandev, Balotelli and Sneijder each game would earn success by playing ultra-defensive, with Eto’o and Pandev playing wide and tracking fullbacks back into their own area,” most people would have thought I was either a complete moron or someone with a very idiosyncratic method of playing football video games. But that’s how Inter won the Champions League.

So as ZM points out, the wide players in the 4213 look to press the fullbacks – this shouldn’t be AC Milan where they only defend with 7 outfield players (though that should be sick this year if they start ‘Dinho, Ibra and Pato across the front with Seedorf as an attacking midfielder behind them – even if they leak goals it will be glorious to watch) but rather Barca-ish where you make it hard for the other team to breathe or think.

Alternatively, I think that if we started Nasri, Rosicky or Eboue in the wide spots instead they might be more diligent about tracking back (than Arshavin at least), while if we go for Vela, Chamakh or Bendtner they’ll have to emulate Eto’o’s selflessness.

Jamie. E on August 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm

At cja: Which at the same time creates space. Vidic has to follow him otherwise Fabregas suddenly has another option to pass to. If Walcott doesn’t cut across Vidic than Nasri’s shot probably would have been blocked.

Gainsbourg69 on August 29, 2010 at 7:45 pm

No. The goal was as a result of Cesc Fabregas’ ability to pick out a pass.

J on August 29, 2010 at 10:00 pm

Which ability was allowed to be best put to use by Walcott making a smart run (whether to receive a pass himself or clear space for Nasri is immaterial, in that the result of either intent is creating space for Nasri when Vidic follows) that gave Fab the space to pass the ball to Nasri.

Frankly, it’s one-part smart run from Theo, one-part dumb move from Vidic — there is already another defender there to possibly track Theo, and Vidic should have remained attentive to the middle of the field and the threat from Nasri.

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 3:28 pm

That’s what making good cuts (I prefer the basketball version of “run” for sentimental reasons) is all about: making things awkward for your opposition by using space such that they have to take difficult decisions regarding how to defend. Ideally you want a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don’t kind of thing, as it was in the video cited, where if Vidic hadn’t run with Theo the other central defender was way too flat-footed to possibly have caught him and Cesc could have slid that pass to an open Walcott on his left instead of an open Nasri on his right.

Sridhar on August 28, 2010 at 7:52 pm

Excellent analysis. For the blackburn goal i think 3 of the Arsenal defenders were at mistake. Koscielny’s mistake was obvious.But Vermaelen and Clichy’s positioning were very poor. Once Koscielny was beated he had a two very easy options one is to cut back to the one Vermaelen was tracking or cross it across. Clichy did not track the runners. I think the problem with Arsenal defense is they get too attracted by the ball and they start watching the ball leaving the runners alone.

May be this will come back haunt us against teams with some quality wingers and late arrivals from midfield.
Credit to Blackburn they played within rules but with a different style. Actually Almunia’s positioning and movement inside the box when dealing with set-pieces was quite interesting. Almunia always started few yards from the goal line and then just before delivery he started moving back, this actually gave him some room to come and claim crosses or atleast did not give chance for Blackburn to crowd the Goalkeeper out. Arsenal looked like well prepared for Blackburn.
One problem with Arsenal defending a set-piece i think is that they do not have any counter-attacking threat since Arsenal use all 11 players for defending , no one was upfield to give them a chance for a quick attack. Only chance they had was when Blackburn really over-committed and a chance was created for Wilshere.

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 3:59 pm

“One problem with Arsenal defending a set-piece i think is that they do not have any counter-attacking threat since Arsenal use all 11 players for defending”

From my perspective this is not a problem. Instead, this is a solution to the problem of leaking goals at set pieces: a man on each post, and marking everyone else tightly. We’ll score plenty of goals without countering on corners.

Scarface on August 28, 2010 at 9:54 pm

Arsenal are boring. Compared to Arsenal of 03/04 at least. Fluidity? From Arsenal? I dont think so. You rarely see the front 3 of Arsenal interchange position naturally and confuse the Blackburn back line. I think that young Blackburn DM Jones is more powerful Makalele, he was in the right positions at the right time to snuff out Arsenal move. If Arse players had overloaded him in the middle by cutting in and providing width from full backs (knowing that Blackburns wingers are both naturally centre forwards and wont track back) they could’ve seen more goals. It amazing that Big Sam’s team lost to such a predictable outfit like Arsenal. On the bright side, Man United loanee Mame Biram Diouf scored

Obviously you didn’t see the 2nd goal – which started off with Chamakh dropping deep, then spreading a pass out to Sagna, who bombed down the right, into the space vacated by Walcott, who had drifted into the box, where Chamakh would normally be standing.

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Bingo, Carlton.

Paul on August 29, 2010 at 12:31 am

I have to agree somewhat. I wish that Arshavin would play more like Nani does for United – hear me out. Nani is the attacking left winger who often makes crosses from both sides of the field, cuts the ball inside for the shot, drifts to the middle to form a midfield 3 in the 4-4-2, pushes up to lead the line when the strikers drop back into space and overlaps with his defender Evra. With a player attacking like this it is very difficult to park the bus because he is allowed to drift into whatever zone is under-defended to create 2vs1 situations. One criticism of Arsenal is that you know what they are going to do. Arshavin will tuck in and never run to the corner, Walcott has a signature shot that he always looks for and everyone knows van Persie is a false 9. There is no mystery and good defenses can assign coverage roles easily.

nani and arshavin are completely different players in completely different teams – no point comparing them, or saying one should do what the other does.

henry had a signature finish, and it didn’t do him any harm. some things you just know are gonna happen, but you just can’t do anything about them.

van persie operates primarily as a false nine, but also likes to make runs in behind for slide rule passes and balls over the top. in the league of unpredictable strikers, he’s pretty high up on the list.

i think a fair criticism of arsenal is that you know that, 90 per cent of the time, they’re gonna get into good positions but fail to take advantage. but in terms of how they make those chances, you cannot accuse them of being predictable, other than saying they’re gonna pass and move.

if you’re the sort of person that finds the current Arsenal way of playing boring, then that’s fair enough, but as Carlton shows, you’re argument that they are boring because of a lack of interchange in the front 3 is simply untrue.

as for jones, “if Arse players had overloaded him in the middle” as you so cleverly put it, then they would have been playing to blackburn’s strengths. perhaps you failed to understand what was said in the article, about the benefit of wide players starting wide, and making out-to-in runs behind the defence with a false 9 dropping deep (see walcott goal).

the wide players occupying jones’ space would have left fabregas with less room to work in, and would have meant the full-backs having to provide all the attacking width, which in turn would have allowed the blackburn wide players too much room on the counter (see diouf goal, which, however pleased you are about it, was ultimately rendered meaningless by the fact arsenal won the game)

Scarface on August 29, 2010 at 2:55 am

Okay, I understand what you mean. But bear in mind that Morten Gamst Pedersen is a winger playing out of position. Arsenal could have made the most of his in experience by having both Song and Diaby push up, thusly condensing the space for him to make the diagonal passes. And if Walcott and Arshavin had both invaded Jones’ defensive zone Van Persie need not have come so deep to link the attack, therefore offering more of a goal threat as an out and out striker. Add to that Fabregas who would have been the spare man. But all in, Arsenals current system played more into Blackburn’s favour. But then again, meh… a wins a win, isn’t it? I just find it irritating that such a playmaker like Arshavin is pigeon-holed into a wing position. Despite his goal, I think his form so far this season, and the last 6 months of the last hasn’t been on par.

How can a man utd fan understand the reason why we wanted to buy Arsh in the 1st place? AW wants a direct player in one of the flanks since 2 seasons ago when not only we couldnt score goals but couldnt create chances either.

Effect of having him wide means, opposition might have to double mark to avoid losing to many 1v1s hence creates space for his teammates.

grizzly on August 29, 2010 at 2:28 am

When Arsenal had possession, Walcott spent as much time in the middle as Chamakh did. Arshavin came central a bit, and Fabregas is free to roam around as much as he wants generally speaking.

Gibbs, and to a lesser extent, Eboue, really need to get time at the fullback positions to help give this team width and improve the possession % even more. Clichy was just okay today, but after most games I’m left questioning thy this guy’s still in an Arsenal shirt.

Anyway, I don’t think a lack of fluidity is Arsenal’s problem. The problem is the forwards don’t have the support down the flanks that they should, so when they do switch positions, Arsenal loses width.

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 4:11 pm

Sagna has sent in two crosses for goals in two weeks. Clearly this indicates he should cede time to Eboue…

You’re not going to judge Sagna’s ability based on two of hundreds of crosses he’s sent in as an Arsenal player, are you?

Don’t get me wrong, I like Sagna. He’s the obvious first-choice RB. But he isn’t the most comfortable player with the ball at his feet and generally his crosses do not find Arsenal players. In the Blackburn game he did well to find Cesc, and was able to keep it on the ground because Blackburn’s defense was completely exposed, but when he must send it in through the air, the result is not as pretty. Eboue would help Arsenal better maintain possession by encouraging shorter passes but that’s only a good option when Arsenal doesn’t fear the opponent’s attacking options on that side.

As for Clichy, let’s just say I don’t use Blackpool statistics to judge the quality of Arsenal defenders. Statistics never tell the whole story, ESPECIALLY in football but lets see his Anfield stats: 53 passes completed, 11 intercepted. 0 interceptions. 8 tackles won, 4 lost.

ZM has written entire articles on how opposing teams attack Clichy more than the rest of the Arsenal defense. Once Gibbs gets fit, we will see less and less of the Frenchman with good reason.

grizzly on September 3, 2010 at 9:51 pm

Clichy with a performance against Belarus that no Arsenal fan should be shocked by

Josef on August 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm

Scarface said, “Jones… was in the right positions at the right time to snuff out Arsenal move,” but just as important was the addendum he left out: “except for when Arsenal scored. Twice.”

Darren on August 28, 2010 at 11:29 pm

Question about the Chalkboard regarding Koscielny’s tackles. Why wouldn’t the play when he was outmucsled for the goal not be considered a lost tackle? In my eyes he lost the ‘tackle’.
I suppose it is down to your interputation of the word tackle, and I have it wrong?

Majec on August 29, 2010 at 3:31 pm

Tackle isn’t a jostle in my book.

Bad_loser on August 29, 2010 at 1:22 am

Mr.Zonal Marking great analysis as usual.
But i have a sugestion. That you write an article about top 10 transfers,but not the most expensive ones,but like how would they fit in the tactic,replacements (Mascherano to Barcelona and Meireiles to Liverpool,but they are completely different players,because Mascherano is a tackler and Meireiles is a passer\creator),too much competition for a first team place (Ibrahimovic to Milan,Adriano to Barcelona etc..) and stuff like that.
Just my suggestion.
Btw: GREAT Site!

Robespierre on August 29, 2010 at 3:06 am

In a nutshell today we saw all the ways Arsenal will continue to suffer defensively this season. The lack of height in defense is terrifying, only Diaby had the height to cover someone like Samba and he is not terribly good at that, 2,3 free headers given that a better CD like a Terry or Vidic would have buried. Vermaelen and the new boy may have good anticipation but against sheer size and power they are bound to give in at least couple of times. The new acquisition Koscielny does not seem like an adequate replacement for Gallas, neither speed nor power nor sufficient experience or technique of a recovering tackle. and like a deja vu from last season again we saw Arsenal caught on the break , where an initial 2 against 3 turns quickly into a 3 or 4to3 with DM players not tracking back the deep runs and defenders caught out of position. basic(back breaking) stuff.

Thanks for the reference, good tapes and fair point. still if 50/50 aerial battles won is some overwhelming success, then I really shudder in wait for the bad news; in any case 3,4 free headers from corner kicks without conceding is good luck but not good D. BUT most importantly the goal conceded was no fluke but similar to a few high profile ones that we took last season and showed a Systemic breakdown in defense on the break. and you have not retorted re Koscielny weakness and for very good reason.

Josef on August 31, 2010 at 2:57 pm

You are correct that I have a good reason for not offering a rebuttal regarding Koscielny: I have not observed him play enough to really have a sense for his worth. I would like to see some more of his game before I render judgment, though I suppose I would also like to see Djourou and Squllaci play because I don’t know that much about any of them. I did like Gallas, and I’m not really sure why Arsenal decided to let him go to turn around and buy someone almost as old – surely even Gallas’s inflated wages would have been less than Squillaci’s transfer fee. I loved having Gallas in the defense because he was indeed fast and excelled at the “recovering tackle” you mentioned above.

drwtw on September 1, 2010 at 3:07 am

He’d also miss almost a third of every season through his obligatory groin injury post-christmas.

shottagunna on August 29, 2010 at 3:26 am

Why do certain detractors of Arsenal use such extreme language such as “the lack of height in defense is terrifying” to make outlandish claims? What game were you watching, sir? We were rarely threatened by Blackburn’s aerial bombardment, particularly in the 2nd half. Our defenders read most of those crosses and we were able to head most of them away comfortably. You don’t have to be as tall as Samba and Crouch, who are both freaks of nature, to negate their height advantage. One defender in front and one behind in set piece situations was generally adequate to deal with Mr Samba. Wenger had already put Chris Foy on notice about fouling the goalkeeper, so the illegal use of the aerial ball was not on the cards. This is not to say the defending was perfect. Kos being outmuscled by El Hadij Diouf, Verm’s failure to provide cover, and Clichy’s ball-watching rather than picking up the runner in the sequence leading to Blackburn’s goal are issues to be ironed out sooner rather than later. But Blackburn was definitely second best and if Wilshere had made use of his gilt-edged opportunity in the latter stages, a third goal would not have flattered.

Dan on August 29, 2010 at 7:49 am

Point 1
Maybe I missed it but I’m not sure Koscielny can really be blamed for the Rovers goal. A pacy wing player like El Haj Diouf SHOULD beat a centre back over a fair distance. I think Koscielny did well to keep up with him and gain time for the defence to set itself. The first problem was that Sagna was nowhere to be found (probably since he was too concerned with providing attacking overlap as in the second Arsenal goal). The second problem was that the other Diouf was completely free when he ghosted into the box to tap in. This I think was an oversight by Clichy, who was, as stated earlier, caught ballwatching.

Point 2
I got the feeling that Arsenal could have provided some more attacking impetus in midfield by either pushing Diaby forward or subbing him for Rosicky (4-1-4-1). I thought it was a mistake to put him on for Fabregas as the 2 holding midfielders meant that Fabregas was often double teamed. Of course this tended to leave Diaby free but I think that he has a tendency to hang onto the ball too long and run into traffic. Rosicky on for Diaby should have allowed Fabregas a lot more time on the ball and brought him into the game more. Subbing off Fabregas didn’t really address the problem of freeing the main playmaker. Of course I haven’t really considered the defensive implications of this, but I’m not sure it really had many given Blackburn’s reliance on long balls to the wingers.

David on August 29, 2010 at 9:16 am

Wenger subbed off Fabregas because he was tired and unfit, not for a tactical reason.

Biskind on August 29, 2010 at 1:27 pm

re Point 1

Koscielny should have dealt with Diouf better. If he can’t muscle a striker off in that postion he should have tackled the ball or as a last resort, have fouled Diouf. To let a striker run into the box like that is unacceptable.

re Point 2

I think Arsenal’s central midfielders had dissapointing games. Diaby and Song are good defensively but they loose to many balls going forward. Fabregas seemed to lack matchfitness. He held the ball for too long and made too many avoidable mistakes.
This led to much more pressure on Arsenal’s goal than was neccessary.

Dan on August 29, 2010 at 7:28 pm

Fair enough. I’m not a proponent of last resort fouling myself. Being an Arsenal fan I tend to believe what Wenger says about teams trying to kick them and I don’t think they should themselves resort to this. I don’t think he was able to tackle the ball as he was already well beaten for pace.

I agree about the midfielders. I just thought that Fabregas was getting double teamed and could have used another playmaker to take the pressure off. Perhaps if Diaby were subbed for Rosicky earlier than the 68th minute…

In both goals, key to the construction was the centre forward dropping short to receive the ball, and the right forward making an outside-to-inside run. 4-3-3 is by far the best formation for Walcott, and Walcott is one of the most important players for Arsenal. He allows them to defeat teams that would otherwise prove stubborn to break down, by making darting runs to draw players out of position; by offering an outlet for the counterattack; by preventing opposition defences from playing a high line and compressing play; and by making diagonal runs to arrive unmarked in the box to score.

He is very much like Freddie Ljungberg, who was often the difference between a 0-0 draw and a 1-0 win, particularly in big games. Clearly Wenger is aware of this and Walcott has claimed that Arsene’s instructed him to watch DVDs of Freddie to try and emulate his off-the-ball running (not that it’s a weak point).